ואת אלה תשקצו מן העוף לא יאכלו שקץ הם וגו' (“And these shall you detest of the fowl; they will not be eaten, a detestable thing are they....” XI, 13).
Concerning these prohibited birds, the Ramban notes: ורבותינו למדו סימנים בעופות והם להכיר בהן שאין בעל אותן הסימנין מן המינין האלה האסורים והסימן הגדול בעופות היא הדריסה כי כל העוף הדורס לעולם טמא כי התורה הרחיקתהו מפני שדמו מקומ' לאחזריותו כו' ונותן אחזריות בלב (“And our Rabbis learnt signs concerning the fowl in order to recognise that any bird with these signs is not from these forbidden species; and the major sign among birds is predation, for any predatory bird is always tamé, for the Torah distanced it because its blood is the source of its cruelty... And implants cruelty in the heart....” ע"ע רמב"ם מורה נבוכים ח"ג פמ"ח שגם הוא כתב כעין זה).
If we continue reading, we note that one of the forbidden birds is the chasida (“stork”), concerning which Rashi ad loc. tells us, following Chazal (חולין ס"ג.): ולמה נקרא שמה חסידה? שעושה חסידות עם חברותי' במזונות (“And why is its name called chasida [literally, “kind”]? Because it does kindness with its fellows with food”).
At first glance this appears to violate the Ramban’s principle; chasiduth would hardly seem to be a negative concept or trait. Our surprise is compounded when we turn elsewhere in the Talmud and learn: ואשא עיני והנה שתים נשים יוצאות ורוח בכנפיהם ולהנה כנפים ככנפי החסידה ותשאינה את העיפה בין הארץ ובין השמים: ואומר אל המלאך הדובר בי אנה המה מוליכות את העיפה: ויאמר אלי לבנות לה בית בארץ שנער" א"ר יוחנן זו חנופה וגסות הרוח שירדו לבבל (“’A I raised my eyes and behold, two women coming out with wind [ruach] in their wings, and they had wings like a chasida’s wings, and they carried an eifa [a measure of volume] between the earth and the heavens. And I said to the angel speaking in me, Where are they taking the eifa? And he said to me, To build her a house in the land of Shin’ar....” [Zecharia V, 9-11]. Said Rabbi Yochanan, 'This is the chanufa [hypocrisy/dishonesty/flattery] and gasuth ha-ruach [presumptuousness] which descended to Babylon;'” קידושין מ"ט:).
A detailed discussion of the prophet’s vision is out of the scope of this essay, but Rashi ad loc. explains what concerns us” אלו שתי הנשים נשאו יצר הרע של חנופה וגסות הרוח כדכתיב "ורוח בכנפיהם" היא גסות הרוח וחנופה נראה בעיני דדייק לה מכנפי החסידה שעושה חסידות עם חברותי' וגו' (“These two women carried the yétzer ha-ra of chanufa and gassuth ha-ruach; as it is written ‘and there was ruach in their wings’ - this is gassuth ha-ruach; and chanufa, it seems to me that [Rabbi Yochanan] deduced from the wings of the chasida, which does kindness with its fellows....” ד"ה העיפה).
Here we would seem to have a wholly negative in chanufa, which is associated with the chasida. Yet, in his comment on our verse, Rashi does not mention it at all, but does mention the seemingly positive quality of chasiduth, which he connects to chanufa in his comment on the above gmara. It begs for explanation.
B.
The legendary Ponevezher Mashgiach, Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler זצ"ל, in his classic work Michtav Mé-Eliyahu, discusses the two antithetical qualities hakkarath ha-tova and kfiyath ha-tova (roughly, “gratitude” and “ingratitude”) on which discussion the following is based (עיי"ש ח"א בקונטרס החסד, וביחוד פ"א ופי"א).
Human beings, Rabbi Dessler explains, are possessed of a capacity for selfless giving to others, rooted in rachamim (“mercy”), and also of a capacity for selfish acquisition, rooted in heath atom (“self-regard”). These capacities, he says, are the roots of hakkarath tova and kfiyath tova. Though these capacities are present in each individual, the balance or proportion differs from one to another, such that the general run of the human race may be divided into the categories of givers and takers.
The giver, when he is the recipient of a gift or favor from another, finds that he cannot rest until he has repaid the kindness in some fashion. Should he find that he is unable to do so in a substantive way, he is led to render thanks, and express his gratitude - hakkarath ha-tova. The taker, Rabbi Dessler goes on, is motivated by his conviction that בשבילי נברא העולם, “the world was created for me.” Hence, he is driven to possess whatever comes his way, and is convinced that he deserves it. He is therefore likely to be unmoved and unmotivated to repay kindnesses, and likely to be kfuy tova - ungrateful. Taken to the extreme, this quality can lead one to commit theft or robbery, and it is the reason why King Shlomo said, שונא מתנות יחי', “One who hates gifts (bribes) will live.” (Proverbs XV, 27)
However, warns Rabbi Dessler, the kfuy tova is also capable of a sort of pseudo-hakkarath ha-tova, stemming not from a profound desire to repay one’s debts and benefit others, but instead from a desire to prime the pump, as it were, and motivate his benefactors to continued beneficence. The two conditions resemble one another superficially, but the latter sense of gratitude comes to an end when the giver has nothing more to give: The “What have you done for me lately?” syndrome.
C.
In another essay in his classic work (עיי' מאמר "כבוד אב ואם והכרת טובה" בח"ג), Rabbi Dessler explains a puzzling midrash in light of the above: אמר רשב"ג כל ימי הייתי משמש את אבא ולא שמשתי אותו אחד ממאה ששימש עשו את אביו (“Said Rabban Shim’on ben Gamli’el, 'All my days I have served abba, and I have nor rendered one hundredth of the service rendered by Esav to his father;” בראשות רבה פס"ה סי' ט"ז).
At first glance the statement appears well nigh incredible, that such a tzaddiq should compare himself to Esav ha-rasha, that his depredations were such that his grandfather Avraham’s life was shortened by five years to spare him the sight (שם פס"ג סי' ט"ז), and that was yet such an exemplar of the mitzva of kibbud av! Still, we must hesitate before accusing Rabban Shim’on ben Gamli’el of false modesty. How to explain this?
The clue is contained in the fact that the mitzva of kibbud av va-ém is rooted in hakkarath ha-tova (עיי' ספר החנוך מצוה ל"ג). The account of Esav’s character clearly indicates that he was an extreme case of kfuy tova, and so it stands to reason that the care he showed his father stemmed from his koach ha-netila, his capacity for acquisitiveness, rather than from any altruistic urges he may have had. Rabbi Dessler concludes that Esav’s real motivation in his exemplary "mitzva" performance was to provide a sterling example to his sons, so that they would treat him similarly when in the course of time he became old and infirm.
(Note the subtle distinction being made here. To provide a positive role model to one’s children of kibbud av va-ém because it is one of the Torah’s mitzvoth, is a very different motivation, with very different consequences in the ultimate Realm of Truth, than the selfish considerations applied by Esav. The two actions superficially resemble each other, but Esav’s action was, in the end, no mitzva at all).
D.
Now let us reconsider the Torah’s judgment of the chasida.
The first Gerer Rebbe, the Chiddushei ha-Rim, has this to say about our verse: שכיון שהיא חולקת מזונותי' רק עם חברותי' ולא ע מינים אחרים לכן היא נין עוף טמא שהרי "אין בודקין למזונות" (“that since it shares its food only with its fellows and not with other species, it is therefore a species of tamé bird, for ‘one does not test [eligibility] for food’ [בבא בתרא ט.]”).
The chasida’s chasiduth stems from taking, not from giving. Storks congregate in large flocks. If all of the storks in a given flock share their food with one another, each stork knows that it will also receive food from its fellows. This is not a disinterested kindness, and as a kindness, it is rooted in the chanufa, the stork’s insincerity, noted by Rabbi Yochanan. Were they also to share their food with, for instance, the ducks or swans, neither of which have this instinct for sharing and so would not repay the kindness, that would indicate a very different source of the stork’s generosity.
This, it seems to me, is the reason why the Torah forbids the chasida, and is what Rashi is trying to show us in his comments both here and in the Talmud: That the chasida’s chasiduth is not worthy of emulation, and should not be implanted in the Jewish nefesh.
No comments:
Post a Comment